Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That last sentence is complete gibberish... sorry, but I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
Regardless of what the dictionary says (definitions differ from version to version, fyi), the LAW never barred gay people from marrying in many states - otherwise, as I've already asked once or twice, why do they need to pass laws banning it? If the law were so clear on this issue, they wouldn't have to introduce amendments/props to make it official.
it did because the word marry excludes its self.
word marry in every single dictionary before the homo movement defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
at the time the law was written it clearly banned it because it went against the definition of the word.
so it was the law because that's what the word meant. So I said if the definition of another word changes, that if the new definition was used it would cause end a law you liked and put in it's place a law you didn't like. Would you say the same garbage?
laws are based on the translation of the words at the time the were written.
word marry in every single dictionary before the homo movement defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
at the time the law was written it clearly banned it because it went against the definition of the word.
so it was the law because that's what the word meant. So I said if the definition of another word changes, that if the new definition was used it would cause end a law you liked and put in it's place a law you didn't like. Would you say the same garbage?
laws are based on the translation of the words at the time the were written.
There were marriages between men in Byzantium which the church agreed to, and possibly the Jewish rabbis as well.
What a load of crap. Perhaps Staten Island, but that is it.
name me 20 neighborhoods outside of Manhattan that would vote for this?
outside of Brownstone Brooklyn most people in Brooklyn are against this garbage and many strongly.
in Queens you could only find a few neighborhoods where this could pass
in the Bronx this would only pass in the non Jewish parts of Riverdale.
I know NY voters way better then you do
remember this great prediction of yours
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
Weprin's support for gay marriage will kill him in this race
No it wont. Much like Obama, Werpin is going to lose the Brooklyn portion of the district, but win Queens (minus Howard Beach). Queens portion outvotes the Brooklyn portion, Werpin wins.
so what do you think of congressman Weprin's voting record?
or this one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
want to make a bet on the bucharian community or the Georgian community or the russian community or the orthodox communities in FH
2. All of those went for Obama, despite many of the other Orthodox areas going for McCain. Werpin will win Forest Hills hands down.
If I remember correctly the area I said Turner would win in FH he did (you want the map)
Jews who are proud of being Jewish (and do more charitable work then almost all Jews) recently voted against 2 Jewish candidates precisely because they were pro abomination marriage.
Dude we're talking about same sex marriage here - not straight marriage, though i do agree that what its turned into is quite the abomination.
Also, buddy, you DO realize of course that Jesus had two daddies right?
Uh oh.
are you an idiot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
Jews who are proud of being Jewish (and do more charitable work then almost all Jews) recently voted against 2 Jewish candidates precisely because they were pro abomination marriage.
and just for the record the Jewish community has the lowest divorce rate in the city.
There were marriages between men in Byzantium which the church agreed to, and possibly the Jewish rabbis as well.
there are 3 source that refer to gay "marriage" in Jewish tradition.
one bans it, and the other 2 are connected to the survival of the world.
all of this is (your comment and my response) completely irrelevant to the legal point I made that when California's marriage laws were written the definition of the word meant man+woman.
there are 3 source that refer to gay "marriage" in Jewish tradition.
one bans it, and the other 2 are connected to the survival of the world.
all of this is (your comment and my response) completely irrelevant to the legal point I made that when California's marriage laws were written the definition of the word meant man+woman.
When California's marriage laws were written, the definition did not include white and Asian of opposite sexes.
name me 20 neighborhoods outside of Manhattan that would vote for this?
outside of Brownstone Brooklyn most people in Brooklyn are against this garbage and many strongly.
in Queens you could only find a few neighborhoods where this could pass
in the Bronx this would only pass in the non Jewish parts of Riverdale.
I know NY voters way better then you do
remember this great prediction of yours
so what do you think of congressman Weprin's voting record?
or this one
If I remember correctly the area I said Turner would win in FH he did (you want the map)
It was pass in virtually all of Queens with the exception of some of the Orthodox areas and Howard Beach. Much of the Bronx it would pass in, most of Brooklyn it would ass outside of the Orthodox areas and perhaps Brighton Beach and Bensonhurst.
The vast majority of the polls out on the issue showed support for same-sex marriage statewide including in NYC. Hell the biggest issue in the 2010 Gov race was Gay marriage.
When California's marriage laws were written, the definition did not include white and Asian of opposite sexes.
Fortunately, times change.
yes it did that's why they excluded specifically it because legally it would have if they didn't have a separate law that would.
as oppose to 2 men marrying where it was excluded by the very word of marriage.
and no I never have or as far as I know anyone in family ever been opposed to interracial marriages (as long as either both or none of the parties were Jewish)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
